Ejected Steel Beams - What do you think?

[simonm]

Based on the picture below, what do you think is the cause of
the steel beams that were ejected over a few hundred feet?

a.) Explosives
b.) Compressed air
c.) Those are really toothpicks
d.) other

[Make7]

1. d.) other

[petgoat]

2. Could they be aluminium cladding from the perimeter columns? nm

[simonm]

5. Maybe, Maybe not

"It didn’t seem real… There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks."

~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer

"What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."

~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE

[simonm]

12. More Evidence - photo

http://www.911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data/documents/3424.htm

NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000-pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building.Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

Edit: it flew over 390 feet

[spooked911]

51. I vote for cladding

[pauldp]

3. The thing that always gets me...

is that there is nothing left of the top of the building yet it keeps
collapsing downward.

[JackRiddler]

4. the majority of the mass...

It's still within the four perimeter walls, at least based on how the pile ended up, with 2/3 of the mass inside the footprint. So it's inside there.

[rman]

7. The pile

Where's the 110 floors worth of concrete and steel?

How much of the concrete ended up as clouds of dust and inches of dust in the streets of lower Manhattan?
Pretty much all of it, it seems.

[LARED]

8. I think much of the steel and concrete settled in the

seven underground levels. Remember the largest volume of the towers was air. Even if 10 percent was solid (a conservation number in my opinion) the 110 stories become 11 stories.

[JackRiddler]

10. no way!

This is myth about 100 percent of the concrete being pulverized.

A large part of it certainly was, as you can see in the clouds. But there is no way to guess at which mass was left over. And what qualifies as pulverized, I wonder? There were millions of chunks, certainly.

On a visit to a collection of rubble, ruins and artifacts held at a JFK hangar I saw chunks of several tons compacted into relatively small masses they called "composites." Ugly stuff to consider.

Added on Edit:

Remember that you can't have it both ways. Either the mass collapsed into the footprint, compacting everything below it as though it had no structural resistance (an argument for demolition), or else the mass was pulverized and ejected away from the footprint - also an argument for demolition? Well, it's all going to end up either inside or outside the footprint in whatever final form it takes, rubble or dust or "composite," there are no other options. So you had better know what you're saying.

[rman]

26. i can have it both ways:

demolition removes structural strength by means of pulverizing (part of) the structure.

My saying "pretty much all of it" may be an exaggeration, but as you say; a "large part" of the structure ended up as dust (much more so then in a normal CD). If the collapse was natural i'd expect most of it to be in the form of slaps of steel reinforced concrete - 110 floors of it. If so much of the mass that supposedly caused the collapse is in the form of dust - then how could it have caused the collapse?

[LARED]

6. other n/t

[simonm]

13. Please elaborate

I would like to know what kind of force can eject a 600,000 pound steel beam. Yes, it's documented.

http://www.911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data/documents/3424.htm



Edit: flew over 390 feet

[LARED]

14. For starters

I very much doubt it weighed 300 tons. Even if it was 300 feet long it would average 2000 lbs per foot. It is highly unlikely that any steel that could have fallen from the height of the WTC or somewhere lower in the structure was 2000 lbs per foot. In fact it is very unlikely any of the steel used in construction was at or over 2000 lbs per foot. Checking my Bethlehem Steel Structural Shapes catalog the largest shape found is 300 lb per foot. It's 3 feet deep and a nearly a 1.5 feet wide.

That is almost besides the point. The force you seek is called gravity. An object falling from a height with a small amount of lateral push will continue to move laterally while it descends for a good distance.

[petgoat]

15. You can't have it both ways LARED

Aren't you the one that claims that buildings can fall only straight down because no lateral force is
strong enough to move them outside their footprints? But now you're invoking a miraculous lateral
force as if all things drift sideways as a normal part of falling. And you're calling it "gravity".
Shall we call it "lateral vector" gravity to distinguish it from the kind that's vectored toward the
center of the earth?

Janedoe was an engineering professor by the way. She's at Clemson.

[dchill]

18. Thanks for posting this.

Saved me the time. ;)

[LARED]

24. That's not what I said at all

I said the WTC cannot tip over. It is OBVIOUS watching videos of the collapse that materials piled up as the collapse progressed forcing material horizontally.

[simonm]

16. Lared, You are amazing!

Just by checking a steel catalog you can estimate the weight better than the workers on the scene! WOW.

The Ohio Task Force workers that removed the large debris must have weighed it incorrectly with their heavy machinery. :sarcasm:

[LARED]

17. Well I was going more in the direction that it was

a typo or misinformation.

[simonm]

21. Another mystery

Unfortunately, the object is not in plain view to estimate accuracy.

[Make7]

19. A different estimate:

Although it doesn't look like a complete pre-fabricated perimeter section (i.e. 3 columns by 3 stories), let us estimate what it might weigh if it were. The perimeter columns were approximately 14 inches square - let's just say 15 inches to be safe. And in the lower parts of the tower the thickness of the walls of the perimeter columns were 4 inches. (Obviously the steel pictured is not from the lower part of the building - but let's pretend for this exercise.) Now - each story was about 12.44 feet - multiply by 3 and we get 37.32 feet.

So we have a cross section of (15 inches x 15 inches) - (7 inches x 7 inches) = 176 square inches

Divide by 144 to get square feet = 1.22 sq. ft.

Multiply by 37.32 ft. (three stories) to get the cubic feet of steel for one column = 45.53 cu. ft.

Multiply by 3 for the numbers of columns = 136.59 cu. ft. of steel

Now - how much does a cubic foot of steel weigh? I don't know the exact type or weight of the steel pictured, so I'll just go with an approximation. The highest density for steel I found in a quick search (source) was 8.03 g/cm³ - which is 501.3 lbs./cu. ft. (For comparison the ASTM A36 steel used for the core columns had a density of 7.312 g/cm³ - source)

So - 136.59 cu. ft. of steel times 501.3 lbs./cu. ft. results in 68,473 pounds of steel. Remember this is the estimate of the maximum weight of the steel in the picture. The stated figure seems to be off by a factor of about 10. (Possibly more.) It is likely that they meant 60,000 lbs. - not 600,000 lbs. Perhaps it is just a typo.

To add to the unlikelihood of the piece pictured weighing 600,000 pounds, I would like to mention that the cranes used to erect to WTC Towers were capable of lifting 60 tons each (source). There are videos showing perimeter sections being lifted by these cranes - since the section in that picture appears to be a perimeter section - it is next to impossible that it weighs 300 tons.

- Make7

[simonm]

20. Thanks

That is a likely possibility and would be one hell of a typo. I think it is under verification by another 911 group.

Make7, what do you believe is the cause behind ejected debris?

[Make7]

57. You're welcome.

Honestly, I think that it is possible that the sudden release of the potential energy of the buildings in catastrophic failures could account for the force needed to propel the ejected debris. All of the heavy pieces appear to be perimeter sections - most controlled demolition theories do not have explosives placed at the perimeter of the buildings, and it seems unlikely that explosives in the core area would also sever and propel the exterior columns outward.

As is the case with most of the evidence regarding the collapses, this does not seem to prove anything one way or the other. That being said - I still lean toward the no explosives explanation.

- Make7

[simonm]

69. Photo Found - More damage visible from extreme weight

I'll trust the worker's statements. Whatever fell was extremely heavy here is a more complete photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap6.html

[dailykoff]

9. So much for the hammer theory.

Hard for those upper floors to hammer through a perfectly intact steel frame when they're floating in the ether.

[jschurchin]

11. I vote C.

There just isn't enough evidence to support any of the other choices. :rofl: :rofl:

[hack89]

22. Why don't you simply calculate the forces involved?

Why the cute poll - is a popular choice by definition always factually correct?

Here's a starting point from one of your fellow 9/11 skeptics:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/WTC_AnalysisRussell.html

Thus, if explosives were used, they would only have contributed about 15,000 kwh, which is largely negligible compared to the gravitational energy.

[dailykoff]

23. He conveniently ignores the steel

which is what held the buildings up, so this is just sound and fury signifying nothing.

[hack89]

25. You didn't understand it , did you?

In a controlled demolition, gravity does the lion's share of the work, while the explosives serve only to destroy the physical integrity of the structure.

This doesn't prove (one way or another) what brought down the structures, but the powder production doesn't seem inconsistent with the physics of the situation.

Furthermore, it's important to remember that the structure of the towers would have been gravely damaged by the airplane impacts. In this situation, the loads in the structure would re-distribute themselves among the intact members, causing some elastic deformation and possibly very high local stresses.

In this situation, even a very moderate amount of further weakening by fire might have been sufficient to set off a chain reaction of events that would progressively destroy the towers.
See the articles by G. Charles Clifton at http://www.hera.org.nz

[dailykoff]

27. I did, and it's a tale told by an idiot.

Specifically, gravity obviously did not do the "lion's share" of these demolitions (WTC 1 and 2), and "powder production" was an effect, not a cause. The rest is the usual nonsense.

[hack89]

28. I keep forgetting that you are faith based and anti-science..

because lord know that if you or any other 9/11 "researcher" actually calculated the forces involved you would not like the answer.

I know better then to ask you to actually use real numbers and calculations to back up your claims so I think it is time to end this particular exchange.
See you later.:hi:

[dailykoff]

29. Relevant "real numbers and calculations" in your article = 0.

The thread is about the steel; your article is about the concrete. I don't know why you posted it in the first place.

[hack89]

31. No - the real discussion is the energy ,,,

don't you get it - the OP is saying that only explosives can provide the energy to toss those steel beam. My post shows that there was more than enough energy contained within the towers. Not only that, but that potential energy dwarfed by orders of magnitude the energy that explosives could provide.

How many tons of explosives were needed to toss those beams? Why is the 9/11 "truth" community so reluctant to embrace science and actually do a calculation or two?

[dailykoff]

32. Concrete is an issue, but it's not the issue here.

Neither is the sheetrock, and neither is the glass.

Get it now? :eyes:

[Make7]

33. Are you being deliberately obtuse? ( n/t )

[hack89]

34. Focus on the energy - got it?

that is the only issue. Steel beams, concrete, sheet rock, glass and everything else were all destroyed by energy. The only question is what was the source of that energy.

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

[dailykoff]

35. Sure -- the energy required to demolish the steel frame,

not the non-structural floors and finishes.

Your article fails to address the relevant issue just like all the other junk science.

[hack89]

36. So give some alternate numbers!

my post has all the necessary formulas - do some research and do your own calculations. It will have to be you, because so far not a single 9/11 "researcher" is willing to do it (or they have and didn't like the answer.).

And you still don't get - how can you make a statement like yours when you have no clue what the energy figures even look like. I know the 9/11 "truth" movement is faith based and you are a good example.

[dailykoff]

37. Your "numbers" belong in a concrete core thread. (n/t)

[hack89]

38. Thanks for proving my point

You have no numbers, don't understand the fundamentals involved and can't answer a direct question, yet feel perfectly qualified to judge real engineers and scientists. :crazy:

You are a poster child for the 9/11 "truth" movement!

[dailykoff]

40. I don't share your taste for creative accounting, no.

After five years the novelty wears thin.

[hack89]

42. No - you have no taste for numbers..

they are too black and white.

[dailykoff]

43. Not for bogus numbers

and the numbers in that article are worthless because they're based on completely ridiculous "guesses," "ballpark figures" and assumptions.

If you can't figure that out, you have no business discussing the subject to begin with.

[hack89]

45. So give me some good numbers!

We both know it is beyond your ability but I thought I would ask. If you want some credibility in this discussion, don't you think that at some point you demonstrate an ability to understand basic engineering and physics concepts? So far all you seem able to do is say "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" like a fourth grader.

[dailykoff]

47. I'm not the one lacking credibility. (n/t)

[LARED]

48. I give a vote for ironic post of the day. Congrats (n/t)

[hack89]

54. Again you prove my point. nt

[dailykoff]

55. Easy to prove a talking point.

Just repeat it.

[hack89]

58. Exactly what you are doing, perhaps? nt

[simonm]

39. Here are your numbers

Sorry, just not interested in helping you obfuscate the issue with complex equations. Maybe another time.

Anyone with a brain can understand that it requires an explosive force to eject heavy steel debris hundreds of feet (600). That is common sense. You can bullshit people some of the time, but not all of the time.

Here is a basic explosives estimate based on gathered seismic data. Please keep in mind that military explosives are more powerful and lighter than TNT. NanoThermite is one example of newer and effective explosives capable of cutting through solid steel.

Richter Magnitude

WTC1= 2.3 (2.7 Tons of TNT)
WTC2= 2.1 (1.4 Tons of TNT)

Video Example:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:19:16 for example)

[hack89]

44. You truly are amazing ...

So I messed up your simple black and white world with all those complex equations? That was basic high school physics!

You don't get it do you? Energy is energy no matter what the source. If you can't show that the potential energy of the WTC does not approximate the energy of a couple tons of explosives then you have nothing. Those seismographs do not prove explosives - they measured the release of energy and nothing more.

As for the steel being ejected, why don't you tell me what happens when 500,000 cubic feet of air is explosively compressed into a volume of zero in a fraction of a second? Watch out though - there might be complex formulas and concepts.

[simonm]

50. The ultimate test - ask any NYer that was there

Ask any New Yorker on the scene and they will tell you about the explosions. Of course, I do not expect you to do so because your bullshit is obvious. I call it as I see it.

As a data analyst it is my job to make informed conclusions based on the available information. I trust the PhDs of ‘911 scholars’ and the eyewitnesses on the scene. It is a simple but effective method towards reaching a quick reliable conclusion.

You, and others like you, offer only hot air and distortions.

[hack89]

53. You are left with nothing but insults ...

but then you had little to start with didn't you? bye bye

[petgoat]

93. "reluctant to embrace science and actually do a calculation"

Jim Hoffman did an energetic analysis of the WTC dust clouds almost three years ago.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html

You'll find a lot of stuff at that site that you need to consider.

[hack89]

96. For fun and giggles.

why don't you calculate the amount of explosives required to give you that 10 fold increase in energy. I think you will find it an eye opener. Then you can tell me how they did it - I can't wait to see what you have to say.

[petgoat]

97. I don't see any reason to get DHS on my back by googling

joules/kg for common explosive materials.

What's your point? That the amount of explosives necessary to produce the pulverization of the concrete
is prohibitive and therefore the pulverization must have been caused by the gravitational forces alone
even though they are an order of magnitude too small to do the job?

[hack89]

98. But if the amount of explosives are also prohibitive ..

then perhaps the real issue is the calculations. I find it interesting that Hoffman held back from the obvious next step - just like the rest of the 9/11 research community he did the calculations on how many tons of explosives were needed and didn't like the answer.

[petgoat]

99. Well according to you, zero tons of explosives did the job.

And there's so much slop in the estimates that Hoffman's results could be overstated by a factor of four.

[hack89]

101. You are the one who believes in explosives ...

yet are afraid to get too close to the real answer. Precision is poison to the CT world. Factor of four, a factor of 40 - you know it makes no difference to you, you will always believe because it is a matter of faith.

[petgoat]

104. You're projecting, hack. I don't believe anything except that

the government is covering a lot of stuff up and their stories don't hold water.

I don't believe there were explosives or weren't.

If you knew anything about science you'd know that frequently an order of magnitude is
the ballpark you're stuck with. As long as the blueprints remain a secret, where are
we supposed to get the numbers for precision?

The 9/11 Commission says the WTC core is "a hollow steel shaft". Is that the kind of
precision you'd like us to aim for?

[MrSammo1]

41. It's........

his job!!!

[hack89]

46. Only during the week...

on the weekends it is purely pleasure.

[Duer 157099]

30. Perhaps this is partly why steel beams are

typically cut prior to controlled demolition, to prevent them from flying about randomly?

[mirandapriestly]

49. If shaped charges cut the steel

and contained thermite to make it hot enough to become molten where it was cut then the rest would pop out. Something like that.

[file83]

106. Exactly. The shape charges placed on the interior support columns

wouldn't cause the exterior pieces seen flying away from the building. The shape charges compromise the structural integrity of the building (to say the least), then gravity and kinetic energy take over from there.

I don't understand why there is such a huge argument about this matter. It's simple and straight forward.

There is no requirement for the lateral debris field to have been caused by anything other than the secondary effects of a falling building. The building is falling of course due to the destruction of the internal support columns being cut by a timed sequence of shape charges (aka: building demolition.)

Quite the contrary in fact. I argue that the lateral debris field would have been much more wide spread that what was, had the building actually fallen from the official "pancake" effect collapse scenario. In fact, the top of the building would have fallen side ways like a tree if the plane impact zone had had lost structural integrity. It wouldn't have "pancaked" down to the next floor - it would have separated from the lower portion, caused some destruction - but ultimately it would have tilted over and slid off. The bottom portion of the building would have remained standing.

[rman]

107. I think more then just the steel beams were cut

Also the concrete floors had to be taken care of - and thermite is not appropriate for that.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

52. Even more than the beams going out at high velocity

What can explain the huge explosion shooting material from what appears to be the already destroyed top section of the building? If you look closely at theose explosions you can even see beams blown WAY up there around them.

What's causing that? Air pressure? The same pressure "venting" from floors below the collapse, as is plainly shown in videos? Lot's of air pressure effects being shown, violent explosions upward and outward, with "venting". Concrete floors exploding to dust, yet still somehow so incredibly fucking heavy they "pancake" the floors beneath them at 8 floors per second.

Magic Air Pressure is what Specter would have called it.

How much more obvious could it be? Really!?

[dailykoff]

56. Exactly.

Whether it's steel or aluminum in the photo, it's clear from the first moments of each collapse that there are no accumulating masses overloading the undemolished floors, because a) the sections above the crash floors rotate off their axes, then disintegrate, and b) the rest of the structures also violently disintegrate. There are no signs of compression failure in the collapses or the debris.

The progressive pancaking explanation is so obviously a bill of goods that anyone still flogging it is simply lying.

[hack89]

59. So all that mass just disappeared?

I don't think so - whether intact or disintegrated all that weight is still there. Your grasp of basic physic is mind boggling!

[Harald Ragnarsson]

60. Right back at you

To insist that a solid chunk of concrete weighs the same as concrete dust suspended in air shows a lack of basic understanding of physics.

[dailykoff]

63. Roger that.

The asbestos, concrete, etc. were suspended in the air, then blown all over NYC and NJ, and the steel was blown laterally out of the structures.





The fact is that gravity played virtually no role in the destruction of WTC 1 and 2.

[hack89]

65. And the rubble pile consisted of what?

http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/LER050_JPG.html

[dailykoff]

66. Rubble. (n/t)

[hack89]

67. Looks like a bunch of steel that fell straight down,,

gravity does that you know. Take a close look at the pictures.

http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/NYC-WTC2001.html#pictures

[dailykoff]

68. Not straight down.

It fell, but not before being laterally dispersed:

[hack89]

70. OK n/t

[hack89]

64. You're kidding right?

Where did the mass go? If I take two identical cars and disassemble one - are you saying that the pile of components weighs less then the complete car? If I take a brick and pound it to dust the dust weighs less then the brick? Where did the weight go?

[simonm]

72. Mass was lost through the Pyroclastic Clouds therefore loss of weight

A lot of the mass was turned into particulate by the same explosive forces that ejected the steel beams. Many things were carried away by the winds in a pyroclastic cloud of debris. It included office furniture, concrete, asbestos, drywall, and even computers. The workers on the scene already verified this evidence.

Isn’t it interesting how concrete and air pressure managed to turn many objects into fine powder? :sarcasm:

Video Example on 9/11 Pyroclastic Clouds:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:07:46)

[hack89]

73. I would take you seriously if you were able ..

to tell me how many tons of explosives were needed to do this and how they were distributed. If only explosives could powder concrete and the floors were the largest source of concrete, how do you place the explosives to ensure that the entire floor was uniformly pulverized? Were there explosives on each floor? You are so sure of yourself - lets see the details behind your thinking.

[simonm]

74. 9/11 tapes: FACT: there were multiple explosions

NY Fire Dept Dispatch Tapes From 9/11

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fdny_dispatches.htm

Why should I waste my time on something that is so obvious? You want me to prove the explosive forces involved yet refuse to listen to the witnesses on the scene.

Are you denying there were multiple explosions?

[dailykoff]

75. The "give me numbers" line is just a dodge.

Let's say you gave her the numbers she claims she wants. First she'd dispute them, then she'd say she really wanted the serial numbers, and on and on.

:crazy:

[hack89]

77. I'm a he actually,

and what a lousy excuse - can't you at least be honest and admit no one in the 9/11 "research" community can answer the question? It is truly amazing that the evidence so overwhelmingly "proves" CD yet does not provide a single clue as to how it was done. This is why I don't accept CD - no one can answer the question of "how" in anything more than vague generalities. Remember it was simonm who accused me of distracting her by bringing "complex formulas" into the discussion.

[dailykoff]

78. My mistake, sorry. As for the rest, that's bull.

1) The "how" has been answered multiple times in multiple threads. To say "no one can answer the question" is simply not true. It's been answered repeatedly.

2) As for your nonsensical demands for the exact quantity of explosives required, all I can say is, post the complete construction documents and specifications, and we'll be happy to comply with your every ridiculous request.

[hack89]

79. No - you are wrong ..

if there is a consensus on how it was done why isn't on the 911 Scholars web site? Dr Jones doesn't even venture a detailed explanation - if a Phd can;t why should I take your word for it?

Since you don't have the construction documents and specs how can you turn around and say it must be CD? Sounds like there are major gaps in your knowledge - how can I trust any of your theories if you admit that you are missing vital information?

[dailykoff]

80. As I see it, you have three choices:

1) Trust your own senses, or if you don't know much about structures,

2) Trust the Ph.D.s, or

3) Trust the administration, who have all the specs but are not releasing them.

I'll let you draw your own conclusion. As for the "how," I didn't say there was a consensus, only that the question has been answered multiple times in multiple threads.

If the technical information ever sees daylight, I imagine that there will be a consensus.

[hack89]

81. I do trust Phd's ..

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

I trust my own judgment.

I don't trust the government.

[dailykoff]

82. The serious Ph.D.s, I should have said.

Not the shills.

[dailykoff]

83. p.s. those essays are also outdated.

Most were written immediately after 9/11, so they're not likely to reflect the latest research, or ANY research:

"For the most part, these articles were prepared between September 2001 and February 2002, and were revised in part in the spring of 2002. Indeed, some of these essays were largely written in their present form in the days following the disaster which saw the first light in September of 2001 as opinion pieces in one of MIT's internet sites, and as internal research reports."

[hack89]

85. Show show how the science was invalidated ..

show me papers of equal depth that show CD - you know you can't.

[dailykoff]

86. Show me the federal grants pipelining money

to research and write articles pointing to administration complicity. You know you can't.


edit to reduce subject line.

[hack89]

102. In that case, I think you should hang it up.

If a new investigation is required to find the truth of 9/11, what organizations have the required skill and experience to conduct such an investigation which are also not complicit in the government's cover up? The FBI, NIST, every university and engineering organization are part of the cover up according to you. Just who do you plan to conduct this investigation?

[hack89]

84. Shill = does not agree with you ...

with no specific proof it is nothing more than a childish way to dismiss inconvenient facts. Nothing else demonstrates to me more the shallowness of your faith based beliefs.

good night.

[petgoat]

89. does not provide a single clue

Baloney. Many times I have pointed out that Van Romero said small amounts of explosives
in a few key places could have brought the towers down. I pointed out that radio control
made installation easy, and if the core columns could be reached in the elevator shafts, a
crew could have placed the charges in one night after midnight.

As to why doesn't Jones publish a detailed theory--maybe it's because he has the good
sense not to propound something he can't prove because a) the blueprints are a secret and
b) he's not a structural engineer.

[hack89]

76. They heard explosions not explosives ..

if you don't understand the difference then I can't help you there.

[simonm]

87. Source

What do you think is the source of explosions?

[petgoat]

94. Powdering the concrete

Dr. Jones points out in his lecture that the concrete floors were covered with tile or carpet, and the
idea that air pressure somehow powdered them is absurd.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

90. You're purposely forgetting the "suspended in air" part

Now why is that, do you suppose?

To be deceptive?

[MrSammo1]

62. actually........

It's you who ignore all the potential energy of the lower floors.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

[hack89]

71. Could you possibly expand your post a little?

it's not clear what you are getting at.

[MrSammo1]

91. The link explains it all

shill!

[hack89]

95. But aren't you shilling things you don't understand ? nt

[Make7]

103. The link explains all. Do not question the link. ( n/t )

[Gregorian]

61. Ceiling tiles. Wall coverings.

At least that was what I thought, whenever I see them fluttering down in the wind. Definitely not steel beams. That I am absolutely positive about. Trust me- I destroy things a lot.

[mirandapriestly]

88. well, not in this picture

[Gregorian]

92. True. But still not a load bearing element.

Those are not "beams". That's just an academic answer. The architect would know for sure. I am guessing they are intermediate support structures. Something along the line of facade, or fenestration. Nothing load bearing related.


You know what bothers me the most about the twin tower event? The proximity of time. The fact that they both fell within such a short time difference. It is incomprehensible to me that both fell, rather than one falling and then the other one lingering. Or even both falling in the same manner. Of all the things, that is what bothers me the most. I say that because no building has ever fallen due to fire. Yet both of those did. And at virtually the same time. Not reasonable.

[mirandapriestly]

100. I think what's in the picture I posted is the cladding from the beams

which went around the building. I see your point, yes, your right. Do you think that the jets from a detonation could cause the debris to get shot outward like that?

[Gregorian]

105. There's only one place for anything in the building to go.

It all goes outside. I have to think how to explain it though. It has to do with the interface of the building and the outside atmosphere. Like a jet engine- the gas is burned, and it has only one place to go. And it goes to the opening. Imagine being a particle in the building that is exposed to a high pressure. It goes toward the lower pressure area. And that would be the 14.7 psi atmosphere of the air outside of the building. The building is a confinement. Even if the particle initially is accelerated toward the inside of the building, like in the turmoil of when the planes entered, it would still continue it's path to the lower pressure area. And since the building is a confined area, it's pressure is higher all around, as compared to the atmosphere right outside of the windows. That even explains why windows blow out when there is an explosion inside of the building. In fact, if one set off an explosion just outside of the building, one might even see some windows intact. The same windows that would never remain intact if that same explosion were to have occured inside of the building.

I'm looking at the extraneous things for my answers. Why the sand on the ground in front of the Pentagon. Why did the steel from the towers go to Japan and get melted down immediately. Those are some very damning questions.

Despite whether people say it's possible or not, a floor losing it's support and dropping a flight would be exactly like an explosion in every way.

I better stop here. I want to get into it. And it's like the JFK assasination. We probably know the truth already.

[simonm]

108. Agreed

When two 110 story buildings collapse in mere seconds it should be questioned. In addition, building 7 fell with no major visible damage.

Something is wrong.

[hack89]

109. How many seconds did it take?

and how many seconds would you have expected without explosives.

As for WTC7, there are firefighter accounts of massive structural damage and 6 fires.

[Loose Nuke]

110. Photo of WTC exploding into powder

One thing clear from this photo- the building is erupting into dust. If steel columns failed and weakened causing a pancake collapse of the entire building, why is the building exploding into sub 100 micron powder?

[Harald Ragnarsson]

111. And how does this dust weigh so much it pancakes the 80 plus

floors below it?

It's silly really, insisting as they do that the massive dust clouds billowing out are the same things that are causing the floors beneath them to collapse.